Communion and Catholics

[darrell]

As has already been discussed in this thread, we Catholics recognize all the baptized as Christian. Also as has been discussed, what many non-Catholic Christians and Catholics believe about the nature of Holy Communion is very different – symbolism versus the true body and blood of Jesus. As also has been stated, the Eucharist – Holy Communion – is a Sacrament. There are 7 Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Holy Communion, Marriage, Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick. With the exception of Anointing of the Sick, all the Sacraments require preparation before receiving.

Any couple can go to a justice of the peace (or a wedding chapel in Vegas) and get married on the spot. But if they go to a Catholic Priest (or I assume a majority of other Christian Pastors?) they would be required to go through wedding preparation before getting married. Rightly so, and it’s the same for Holy Communion.

When I converted to the Catholic Church, I was surprised that it would take a year – or more – before I would become fully Catholic and be able to partake of the Lord's Supper. I had been Baptized and raised Presbyterian – I was already a Christian. Initially I was a little put back (so I can relate to how Pard and others felt), But even so I went through nearly a year of education, discernment and preparation. It was worth it.

I don’t really see it as closed communion – all are invited. If you believe in the Sacrament, anyone can do what I did and come into full communion with the Church. If you really believe what we Catholics believe – that it’s True Food – you should be beating down the doors to get in.

 

[Adullam]

As has already been discussed in this thread, we Catholics recognize all the baptized as Christian. Also as has been discussed, what many non-Catholic Christians and Catholics believe about the nature of Holy Communion is very different – symbolism versus the true body and blood of Jesus. As also has been stated, the Eucharist – Holy Communion – is a Sacrament. There are 7 Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Holy Communion, Marriage, Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick. With the exception of Anointing of the Sick, all the Sacraments require preparation before receiving.

Any couple can go to a justice of the peace (or a wedding chapel in Vegas) and get married on the spot. But if they go to a Catholic Priest (or I assume a majority of other Christian Pastors?) they would be required to go through wedding preparation before getting married. Rightly so, and it’s the same for Holy Communion.

When I converted to the Catholic Church, I was surprised that it would take a year – or more – before I would become fully Catholic and be able to partake of the Lord's Supper. I had been Baptized and raised Presbyterian – I was already a Christian. Initially I was a little put back (so I can relate to how Pard and others felt), But even so I went through nearly a year of education, discernment and preparation. It was worth it.

I don’t really see it as closed communion – all are invited. If you believe in the Sacrament, anyone can do what I did and come into full communion with the Church. If you really believe what we Catholics believe – that it’s True Food – you should be beating down the doors to get in.

In the OT we see holy things and sacred rituals. But Jesus Christ came to do away with the symbology and bring the reality. The true Food is Christ Himself. This is the living Manna from heaven. Elements such as bread and wine are not alive.

We are to walk in His life all the time. We break bread among the brethren as a sign of an accomplished promise...especially during passover.

Are we to walk in rituals or in power?

I know that many believe in the power of rituals. That the sacred remains among us. But Jesus Christ does away with the sacred. The temple is no longer made of stone. Holiness is no longer about certain clothing or implements.

We are to walk in His resurrection life and conquer the flesh.

So the communion meal is mainly a sign for the Jews who understand Passover as their liberation from bondage. We as non-Jews share in these roots in order to better understand God's plan of redemption from the beginning.

Is there a real presence among the brothers during communion?

Of course! But this is a communal thing. We are doing something together to experience Christ together. When we gather in His name He is there...not just during communion. So the mystery of the presence is not about a sacred bread or holy wine. Not at all! It is about an open heart to fellowship in Christ with one another.

Some believe in special times and others believe all times are special. Are we only to be kind and giving at Christmas?

Whichever way we lean, the reality is that we are no longer to walk as mere men. Rather we are to be empowered to live as saints in the world.

No ritual can improve the odds of that happening.

Kind Regards!

 

[Larry]

Any system is systematic. They follow rules and guidelines. Don't expect a system to discern by the Spirit.

I am amazed that "properly discerning the Lord's body" has been perverted to refer to communion as being his actual "flesh and blood". The actual meaning is about unity of the whole church not of just within some little denominational sect. In all actuality when you use communion as an instrument of division you are not properly discerning the Lord's body. "for this cause many are sick among you"
Why?
It's simple and psalm 133 explains it. There must be unity for the anointing to flow from the head down to the hem of his garment.The "tzitzit" was the tassel with the blue thread that the Jews were commanded by God to wear.It was there to always remind them to keep God's commandments. It was this very tassel that the women with the issue of blood touched and was healed. It was this tassel that was refered to in Mal 4;1 where we are told "the sun of righteousness will arise with healing in his wings. Without unity the oil can't flow from the head to the healing tassel...for this cause there are many who are sick among you"

Yes,we must eat his flesh and drink his blood on a daily basis. As food for our spirit. However,it is symbolic just as communion at the last summer was.Jesus didn't cut his wrists and drain it into the cup and say "drink,this is my blood" It was a symbolic action of what the wine represented. Are we cannibals?

 

[Brother Lawrence]

Jesus didn't cut his wrists and drain it into the cup and say "drink,this is my blood"

He also did not say "drink, this is symbolic of my blood".

In order to understand the Eucharist it is necessary to understand it's precursors in the manna from heaven, the passover, the feeding of the five thousand, and finally in the passage from John where he plainly says "I am the bread of life". None of those things were symbolic, and neither is the body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist. These are literally the gifts of God for the people of God. Heaven meets earth in the mass and in the body and blood of Christ.

And no, we are not cannibals. We are Christians.

 

[Larry]

He also did not say "drink, this is symbolic of my blood".

In order to understand the Eucharist it is necessary to understand it's precursors in the manna from heaven, the passover, the feeding of the five thousand, and finally in the passage from John where he plainly says "I am the bread of life". None of those things were symbolic, and neither is the body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist. These are literally the gifts of God for the people of God. Heaven meets earth in the mass and in the body and blood of Christ.

And no, we are not cannibals. We are Christians.

Can you provide us with some DNA samples of the Eucharist? I would love to see the genetic evidence for a transubstantiation
Yes,you are correct. In order to understand communion you have to understand it's precursors. The feeding of the 5000 was not done with the flesh of Jesus. In fact,it was a result of this feeding that caused him to say"You must eat my flesh" The manna from heaven was not his flesh either. However,it is SYMBOLIC of his flesh. Just as communion today is. The doctrine of transubstantiation does not properly discern the Lord's body.

 

[Sparkey]

(1Cr 10:17 KJV) - "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."



2
How can the function of communion (to join us together) become dysfunction?

"And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:"

- "A Ma`alot Song. By David.
See how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to live together in unity!
It is like the precious oil on the head,
That ran down on the beard,
Even Aharon's beard;
That came down on the edge of his robes;

Like the dew of Hermon,
That comes down on the hills of Tziyon:
For there the LORD gives the blessing,
Even life forevermore."

 

[Mike]

This is not directed at all participants in this thread, but it is to some. If posts continue to be made to argue for or against the Catholic understanding of communion, it will be locked and sent to Dead Threads. As I have already noted, there are rules in place regarding Catholicism. This is not an approved forum in which to do this.

Posts need to be focused on discussing the appropriateness of not opening communion to Christians who don't share a common understanding. This way, it addresses a number of churches who practice this restriction.

Thank you.

 

[Larry]

This is not directed at all participants in this thread, but it is to some. If posts continue to be made to argue for or against the Catholic understanding of communion, it will be locked and sent to Dead Threads. As I have already noted, there are rules in place regarding Catholicism. This is not an approved forum in which to do this.

Posts need to be focused on discussing the appropriateness of not opening communion to Christians who don't share a common understanding. This way, it addresses a number of churches who practice this restriction.

Thank you.

My family is Catholic. I went to Catholic School. If I go to Catholic Church with my family will I be denied the right to partake in communion even though I have `been baptized Catholic and have since left organized religion? My family would probably drag me out the door if I dared try.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

Can you provide us with some DNA samples of the Eucharist? I would love to see the genetic evidence for a transubstantiation
Yes,you are correct. In order to understand communion you have to understand it's precursors. The feeding of the 5000 was not done with the flesh of Jesus. In fact,it was a result of this feeding that caused him to say"You must eat my flesh" The manna from heaven was not his flesh either. However,it is SYMBOLIC of his flesh. Just as communion today is. The doctrine of transubstantiation does not properly discern the Lord's body.

I am not arguing for transubstantiation, if you read the rest of the thread. But if that's the way you want it, this is what Jesus had to say about that and his body and blood:

Joh 6:48 I am the bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Joh 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Joh 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Joh 6:56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
Joh 6:59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

Now, please supply me with scriptural proof that the body and blood present in the communion are mere symbols. We believe the body and blood are present in the Eucharist, made possible by whatever Holy mystery the Lord has provided, which is why some of us are careful about who we serve. Our service book actually says that we are not to serve anyone living in unrepentant sin, even if they are in our own congregation.

 

[turnorburn]

According to the church in Rome it is the real body and the blood of our savior, according to this book you had best take part if not then....

Foxes Book of Martyrs

turnorburn

 

[Larry]

Now, please supply me with scriptural proof that the body and blood present in the communion are mere symbols. We believe the body and blood are present in the Eucharist, made possible by whatever Holy mystery the Lord has provided, which is why some of us are careful about who we serve. Our service book actually says that we are not to serve anyone living in unrepentant sin, even if they are in our own congregation.

I will be happy too in another thread if it's allowed. If not then another forum.
Due to Ignatius's comments maybe my position should be reconsidered.He definitely agrees with your position.I am a seeker and will change if I have inherited a lie from my teachers. I have changed many times before when my position has shown to be wrong.Like I said ,DNA evidence would provide overwhelming proof. But then we live by faith and not by sight,eh?

 

[darrell]

It is noteworthy that the moderators have been extremely patient in not closing this thread after several warnings have been seemingly ignored. Thank you. For my part, I will attempt to not argue for or against Catholic belief on the nature of Communion, but simply expand on what we believe and how it is relevant to not opening Communion to everyone. Then, I’ll offer an invitation.

IF we believe that communion is merely about fellowship among Christian bothers and sisters, then I see no reason to restricting communion to anyone, for we are all God’s children. However, if we believe Holy Communion is something much more – a Sacrament, with everything explicit in the definition – then the Church has not only the right, but also good reason to say who receives.

In the OT we see holy things and sacred rituals. But Jesus Christ came to do away with the symbology and bring the reality. The true Food is Christ Himself. This is the living Manna from heaven. Elements such as bread and wine are not alive.

We are to walk in His life all the time. We break bread among the brethren as a sign of an accomplished promise...especially during passover.

Are we to walk in rituals or in power?

I know that many believe in the power of rituals. That the sacred remains among us. But Jesus Christ does away with the sacred. The temple is no longer made of stone. Holiness is no longer about certain clothing or implements.

We are to walk in His resurrection life and conquer the flesh.

So the communion meal is mainly a sign for the Jews who understand Passover as their liberation from bondage. We as non-Jews share in these roots in order to better understand God's plan of redemption from the beginning.

Is there a real presence among the brothers during communion?

Of course! But this is a communal thing. We are doing something together to experience Christ together. When we gather in His name He is there...not just during communion. So the mystery of the presence is not about a sacred bread or holy wine. Not at all! It is about an open heart to fellowship in Christ with one another.

Some believe in special times and others believe all times are special. Are we only to be kind and giving at Christmas?

Whichever way we lean, the reality is that we are no longer to walk as mere men. Rather we are to be empowered to live as saints in the world.

No ritual can improve the odds of that happening.

Kind Regards!

You are correct that Christians are not to “walk as mere men†(to be of this world), but rather “to be empowered to live as saints in the world.†We can’t do that on our own – we can’t “empower†ourselves – we need sanctifying grace.

When it comes to rituals, if it is a man made ritual, then that’s all it is. However, if a ritual was instituted by Christ Jesus himself as a source of sanctifying grace, then by definition that ritual is a sacrament. For example, let’s look at the “ritual†of marriage which I cited in my previous post:

In a secular marriage between a non-religious couple who make up their own vows, I would argue it’s possible God may or may not be active in their marriage. If one or both are not truly in their hearts committed to the union and truly love the other by putting the wants and needs of the other first, then it’s a tenuous and superficial ritual to start with. If their commitment is only till one or the other becomes bored, unhappy or meets someone new and exciting, or they simply just “grow apartâ€, then there wasn’t any real commitment to begin with. This is in no way a real commitment, for in a Christian marriage, the two become one flesh and the marriage is “till death us do part.†However, if a non-believing couple loves one another by putting the other first, and they commit to their marriage and stick it out despite whatever hardships or temptations come along, then there is real love in their relationship and God is there for God is love.

On the other hand The Christian marriage is a covenant – an exchange of persons. In their wedding “ritualâ€, the couple makes sacred vows to each other before God. In this sacramental union, through the grace of God, the couple grows in love by keeping their vows no matter what. Of course, just because the Christian marriage is a sacrament and a source of grace doesn’t guarantee success. It requires a response to grace from the individual.

At this point, we might ask if a non-Christian marriage can be a source of growth in love, and the Christian marriage despite being sacramental can still fail, do we really need the sacraments? Well, in our secular, “me firstâ€, “if it feels good, do it†society, I’ll take the Church given to us by Christ as a source of truth and grace, and I’ll pray to the good God to give me whatever I need to properly respond to His grace. Otherwise, it’s just too easy to pick and choose and move the line.

Furthermore, in post #63 of this thread, Joe asked the truly pertinent question, and from what I can see the question at the heart of all disunity within Christianity. If anyone would like to discuss why I believe this further in a one-on-one discussion, it would be my pleasure.

 

[Bonairos]

IF we believe that communion is merely about fellowship among Christian bothers and sisters, then I see no reason to restricting communion to anyone, for we are all God’s children. However, if we believe Holy Communion is something much more – a Sacrament, with everything explicit in the definition – then the Church has not only the right, but also good reason to say who receives.

Merely fellowship among Christian brothers and sisters? Perhaps one benefit or purpose but not the only. And definitely not merely.

Yet stating (believing) that, ". . . we are all God's Children" would also assume that God is Father of all. This may be where our disagreements stem from.

"He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12,13

All created by God? Yes. All children? No.

Who is it that gives mankind that right (to become a child) or the right to receive communion? Is it the Church or the Head of the Church Himself?



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Brother Lawrence]

I will be happy too in another thread if it's allowed. If not then another forum.
Due to Ignatius's comments maybe my position should be reconsidered.He definitely agrees with your position.I am a seeker and will change if I have inherited a lie from my teachers. I have changed many times before when my position has shown to be wrong.Like I said ,DNA evidence would provide overwhelming proof. But then we live by faith and not by sight,eh?

I began a quest for truth many years ago, and the last thing I expected was that I would end up celebrating the Catholic faith via the Anglican tradition. God be with you in your quest.

 

[WIP]

Not to take this off course but one thing I think we need to be careful about is that we don't place too much emphasis or focus on church doctrine lest we forget our true calling. We do tend to get a little hung up that way. It's not the traditions, rules, and rituals of our various congregations (denominations) that save us.

 

[Elijah674]

My family is Catholic. I went to Catholic School. If I go to Catholic Church with my family will I be denied the right to partake in communion even though I have `been baptized Catholic and have since left organized religion? My family would probably drag me out the door if I dared try.

Hi, you sound sincere? So why not just start up a 2 Tim. 3:16 thread on Doctrine then? (it seems that all one has to do is mention rome, and then most thread's get threats of closure? so perhaps on a new thread, they might be called the mother of harlots? Rev. 17:1-5?)
--Elijah

 

[Elijah674]

Merely fellowship among Christian brothers and sisters? Perhaps one benefit or purpose but not the only. And definitely not merely.

Yet stating (believing) that, ". . . we are all God's Children" would also assume that God is Father of all. This may be where our disagreements stem from.

"He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12,13

All created by God? Yes. All children? No.

Who is it that gives mankind that right (to become a child) or the right to receive communion? Is it the Church or the Head of the Church Himself?



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

?? John 12:42-43 surely finds a [FREE CHOICE] being made. Even see it in Isa. 5:3 & 4 (there/bout?) with the Words of JUDGE YE BETWIXT ME and MY VINEYARD. (verse 7 say the HOUSE) Again though, it takes BOTH TO BE IN CHRIST. Rom. 8:1

--Elijah

 

[Adullam]

Darrell said! if a ritual was instituted by Christ Jesus himself as a source of sanctifying grace, then by definition that ritual is a sacrament.

Jesus Christ came to do away with rituals in order to bring a living reality. Communion is ongoing in the Spirit. Our fellowship is in the Spirit or else we are still carnal men looking for sanctifying practices that will somehow make up for a lack of grace in our lives. The communion meal is a GROUP partaking where the love of Christ is celebrated together. We lean on each other as we take this meal to remember to love as Jesus loved.

But there is no magical power in certain foods. That is to miss the point entirely!

 

[darrell]

...It's not the traditions, rules, and rituals of our various congregations (denominations) that save us.

True. So does that mean these things are not important?

 

[darrell]

Jesus Christ came to do away with rituals in order to bring a living reality. Communion is ongoing in the Spirit. Our fellowship is in the Spirit or else we are still carnal men looking for sanctifying practices that will somehow make up for a lack of grace in our lives. The communion meal is a GROUP partaking where the love of Christ is celebrated together. We lean on each other as we take this meal to remember to love as Jesus loved.

But there is no magical power in certain foods. That is to miss the point entirely!

So you believe that the Apostles, their successors and all the believing church-going Christians for the first 15oo years A.D. got it wrong, and I believe they got it right. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.